Libertarian Papershttp://libertarianpapers.org
A Journal of Philosophy, Politics, and EconomicsSun, 21 Jan 2018 12:30:05 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.311408138“The Universal Categories of Praxeology in Light of Natural Semantic Metalanguage Theory”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/Gz_fbbxFGaM/
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:57:57 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5215Abstract: This article presents a new approach to considering the categories and concepts necessary for praxeology based on the theoretical framework proposed by Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard. Natural semantic metalanguage theory can be a comprehensive method for defining the conceptual foundations of human action and of rational discussion in general. Behind the very premise of […]

]]>Abstract: This article presents a new approach to considering the categories and concepts necessary for praxeology based on the theoretical framework proposed by Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard. Natural semantic metalanguage theory can be a comprehensive method for defining the conceptual foundations of human action and of rational discussion in general. Behind the very premise of praxeology lies the basis from which one may infer the universal parts of “human semantics.” Therefore, it is possible to attach a praxeological interpretation to the shape that natural semantic metalanguage theory has taken. Additionally, the linguistic framework proposed by Wierzbicka enables a precise and coherent description of the universal foundation of human cognition that can be transferred to reflections surrounding the study of purposeful human behavior. This contemporary version of the concept of lingua mentalis is not only a useful tool in a discussion of hermeneutics and relativism, but has also undergone considerable empirical testing.

]]>5215http://libertarianpapers.org/dziedziul-praxeology-natural-semantic-metalanguage/“Liberty Versus Democracy in Bruno Leoni and Friedrich von Hayek”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/2YMZIBS8fKc/
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:02:01 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5197Abstract: This article discusses the parallels between Friedrich von Hayek and Bruno Leoni’s criticisms of democracy. Both men were leading protagonists of the classical liberal tradition. The thesis contained of this paper is that Hayek, although critical of democratic systems that do not reconcile liberty and equality, still believed in the democratic principle and tried […]

]]>Abstract: This article discusses the parallels between Friedrich von Hayek and Bruno Leoni’s criticisms of democracy. Both men were leading protagonists of the classical liberal tradition. The thesis contained of this paper is that Hayek, although critical of democratic systems that do not reconcile liberty and equality, still believed in the democratic principle and tried to save it. On the other hand, Leoni’s approach to democracy was much more radical and very close to some strands of modern libertarianism. In particular, he theorized a model of power virtually without coercion.

]]>5197http://libertarianpapers.org/modigno-liberty-democracy-leoni-hayek/“Libertarian Law and Military Defense”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/p1x2yjb2bmI/
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 09:40:16 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5189Abstract: Joseph Newhard (2017) argues that a libertarian anarchist society would be at a serious military disadvantage if it extended the nonaggression principle to include potential foreign invaders. He goes so far as to recommend cultivating the ability to launch a nuclear attack on foreign cities. In contrast, I argue that the free society would derive […]

]]>Abstract: Joseph Newhard (2017) argues that a libertarian anarchist society would be at a serious military disadvantage if it extended the nonaggression principle to include potential foreign invaders. He goes so far as to recommend cultivating the ability to launch a nuclear attack on foreign cities. In contrast, I argue that the free society would derive its strength from a total commitment to property rights and the protection of innocent life. Both theory and history suggest that a free society would be capable of defending itself, and indeed that it would probably use other means to avoid military conflict altogether.

]]>5189http://libertarianpapers.org/murphy-libertarian-law-military-defense/“What is Distribution in the Market Process?”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/IlvlIvojSDs/
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:55:28 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5171Abstract: It is a commonplace of the current learned diagnoses that modern technology has all but abolished the resistances of nature to the physical production and transportation of goods. Distribution is regarded as less well developed—as the open or broken link between our needs and their ful­fillment, between desire and gratification. To concede this should suggest […]

]]>Abstract: It is a commonplace of the current learned diagnoses that modern technology has all but abolished the resistances of nature to the physical production and transportation of goods. Distribution is regarded as less well developed—as the open or broken link between our needs and their ful­fillment, between desire and gratification. To concede this should suggest not that the current processes of distribution should be attacked or abolished but rather that they should be examined and understood, for it should be remem­bered that distribution, for all its difficulties, does at least measurably take place and, like any other phenomena, it can be understood only in terms of its functioning and carrying on and never in terms of its non-functioning or failure to do so.

]]>5171http://libertarianpapers.org/heath-what-is-distribution-market-process/“Some Principles of Politics”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/Yauf6qyThJI/
Wed, 05 Jul 2017 09:36:45 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5159Abstract: Unlike economists, it is unusual for political scientists to discuss first principles of our discipline. My purpose in this article is to make a small contribution toward remedying this situation by calling to mind a few fundamentals about government that all students of politics should know. Drawing on the work of classical, modern and […]

]]>Abstract: Unlike economists, it is unusual for political scientists to discuss first principles of our discipline. My purpose in this article is to make a small contribution toward remedying this situation by calling to mind a few fundamentals about government that all students of politics should know. Drawing on the work of classical, modern and contemporary scholarship, and my own empirical analysis of 700 elections in 50 democracies, of more than a dozen dictatorships of various ideological cast, and of the history of two cases with which I am most familiar—the United States and Cuba—I identify five elements of politics, two basic compounds or regime types, and six scientific “laws” that govern their operations.

]]>5159http://libertarianpapers.org/cuzan-principles-of-politics/“Book Review: Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System“http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/TyPy_jG1Uow/
Tue, 04 Jul 2017 15:20:58 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5151Abstract: In a new book-length treatment, Tara Smith, who has written extensively on the intersections of Objectivist philosophy and law, explains how judicial review, a feature of non-Objectivist jurisprudence, should function in a truly Objectivist legal system. Divided into two halves, Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System first sets forth what Objectivism is and […]

]]>Abstract: In a new book-length treatment, Tara Smith, who has written extensively on the intersections of Objectivist philosophy and law, explains how judicial review, a feature of non-Objectivist jurisprudence, should function in a truly Objectivist legal system. Divided into two halves, Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System first sets forth what Objectivism is and how Objectivists understand law. Of particular importance in this regard, Smith stresses, is the written constitution, which Smith, following the logical premises of Objectivism, calls “bedrock legal authority.” In the second half of the book, Smith moves to narrower considerations of judicial review proper. Smith’s first task in those sections is to critique the “failures” of “the reigning accounts” to understand judicial review. After dispensing with the various mistaken versions of judicial review as she sees them, Smith defines Objectivist judicial review before providing a handful of examples of how such a process might work in “contemporary conditions.”

]]>5151http://libertarianpapers.org/morgan-tara-smith-judicial-review/“Libertarianism and Abortion: A Reply to Professor Narveson”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/CNTQlKO3xhA/
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:20:44 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5111Abstract: Jan Narveson criticizes the view expressed in my Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World that there is no orthodox libertarian position on the ethics of abortion. He asserts that fetuses lack the defining characteristics of personhood, and thus are ineligible for what he terms “intrinsic” rights under his, and presumably any other, plausible libertarian […]

]]>Abstract: Jan Narveson criticizes the view expressed in my Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World that there is no orthodox libertarian position on the ethics of abortion. He asserts that fetuses lack the defining characteristics of personhood, and thus are ineligible for what he terms “intrinsic” rights under his, and presumably any other, plausible libertarian theory. My counterargument is threefold: (i) Narveson’s contractarianism can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the pro-life perspective; (ii) because his theory permits no principled distinction between the moral status of third trimester fetuses and newborns, the contrary reading of his social contract produces a result that is implausible and even repellent; and (iii) even if his version of contractarianism does imply a unique, aggressively pro-choice stance on abortion, there are competing libertarian theories that are receptive to pro-life views.

]]>5111http://libertarianpapers.org/friedman-abortion-narveson/“The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/s5eONP_e634/
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:58:35 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5101Abstract: This paper defends the Blockian Proviso against its critics, Kinsella in particular, and interprets it as a law of non-contradiction in the theory of just property rights. I demonstrate that one may not lawfully appropriate in such a way as to forestall others from appropriating an unowned land because such appropriation would result in conflict-generating […]

]]>Abstract: This paper defends the Blockian Proviso against its critics, Kinsella in particular, and interprets it as a law of non-contradiction in the theory of just property rights. I demonstrate that one may not lawfully appropriate in such a way as to forestall others from appropriating an unowned land because such appropriation would result in conflict-generating norms, and conflict-generating norms are not rationally justifiable and just norms. The Blockian Proviso, which precludes forestalling, operates therefore at the level of original appropriation and determines, according to the homestead principle of justice in first acquisition, what may and what may not be lawfully appropriated. Hence, the Blockian Proviso is not an add-on to the homestead principle but part and parcel thereof.

]]>5101http://libertarianpapers.org/dominiak-blockian-proviso/“Ayn Rand and Friedrich A. Hayek: A Comparison”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/hWcGixI8lpg/
Fri, 26 May 2017 13:51:45 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5100Abstract: Ayn Rand and Friedrich A. Hayek were two of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century in the effort to turn the current of opinion away from collectivism and toward what could be called classical liberalism or libertarianism. The purpose of this pedagogical article is to explain, describe, and compare the essential ideas of these […]

]]>Abstract: Ayn Rand and Friedrich A. Hayek were two of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century in the effort to turn the current of opinion away from collectivism and toward what could be called classical liberalism or libertarianism. The purpose of this pedagogical article is to explain, describe, and compare the essential ideas of these great advocates of liberty in language that permits generally educated readers to understand, recognize, and appreciate their significance. It that sense, it hopes to make the the ideas of Rand and Hayek accessible to a wide range of readers through the use of clear explanations. To aid in this endeavor, the article concludes with the presentation and discussion of a table that summarizes and compares their ideas on a variety of problems in and dimensions of philosophy and social science. The target audience of this essay includes educated laypeople and college students, many of whom may decide to read and study the original works of these prominent theorists of a free society after being exposed to their essential ideas.

]]>5100http://libertarianpapers.org/younkins-ayn-rand-hayek/“Malthus’s Doctrine in Historical Perspective”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LibertarianPapers/~3/W9ucfFh0q20/
Mon, 15 May 2017 08:37:54 +0000http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=5059Abstract: The nineteenth century was a period of unprecedented productivity in the world, occasioned by the widespread development and practice of contract and voluntary exchange. For the first time in history, man began to cease, like other animals, to be essentially predatory on his environment, despoiling and exhausting it, and began instead to make it progressively […]

]]>Abstract: The nineteenth century was a period of unprecedented productivity in the world, occasioned by the widespread development and practice of contract and voluntary exchange. For the first time in history, man began to cease, like other animals, to be essentially predatory on his environment, despoiling and exhausting it, and began instead to make it progressively more productive and more able to support his own kind. Thomas Robert Malthus lived well into this productive century, but his thinking remained in the past, as did that of his contemporary, David Ricardo, and his successors, the Classical Economists, including even J.S. Mill. In this essay Spencer Heath carefully refutes Ricardo’s argument in support of Malthus and stresses the importance of understanding man not in terms of his animal nature, but in terms of his uniquely human potential; that is, his evolving, creative nature.